so how is online piracy justified again?

a reply to: oblvion
You asked the question, I gave you the actual answer. Not some dressed up version, but the actual human reason for it.
you didn't gave me a good answer, let alone the "actual" answer. you just gave me very poor reasoning of why you think it is okay for you to illegally download whatever it is you download.
They are the kind that cant have enough, even if it were trillions of times more than billions of their line could ever use. They have no soul, they arent even people.
it doesn't matter if they were demons. they do business according to the law and so should you.
They are akin to crackheads. The only difference is one cares about nothing, no kids, not loved ones, not family, they care only about their addiction.
sounds like you know all these people personally and have been part of their private life. i didn't know.
Op, are you from universal or tristar?...no wait... it is warner brothers, the most souless entity in the entertainment endustry!!!! Say I am wrong!!!! Your words betray you sucker!!!!

a reply to: mysterioustranger
I support file sharing. When we began creating music and writing original works, we never anticipated that tech would advance so far that anyone can grab, copy and pass it back and forth.
which is why there is this thing called copyright.
But it did. I believe now a way has to come to bridge what is considered "original intellectual property" rights and the public.
yeah let's just do away with intellectual property, that's a great idea. or really just another weak way pirates attempt to justify their behavior.
We're getting there...slowly. And thats ok. I'd really prefer the term "SHARING" as opposed to "PIRACY". Both sides in this issue are right. Both can benefit fairly.
sharing (part of piracy) copyrighted material is illegal.
Ill close here now with just a last thought. Why do you think every game, video or D.V.D.-C.D. has that FBI warning on it? What do you think its there for?
i dunno, to scare people from pirating? even if it's not effective, the warnings have to be there anyway because otherwise piracy would be done on an even larger scale than if the warnings weren't there.

"hey uhhh don't you do dare go over the speed limit or you risk a ticket"
yet many many people speed all the time. but without that warning about not speeding, speeding would be a normal thing

The simple breakdown is that theft is when i take your cake and eat
it and you get nothing, piracy is when i take the recipe you used and
make my own cake and we both get a tasty treat. So called piracy
is a fight over weather or not a product is worth what they are claiming
it is worth since they get unlimited digital copies of said product.

I don't see them paying Samsung, western digital, seagate or any other
hard drive manufacturer for the storage space they use again and again,
they pay once and get the storage but use it over and over, now that's a
crime. The reason this is all a ridiculous battle is beacsue they want to
pretend as if their costs are the same when in reality their cost is much
much lower now days and the market simply will not bear it, thus a black
market is born.

a reply to: bloodreviara
The simple breakdown is that theft is when i take your cake and eat it and you get nothing, piracy is when i take the recipe you used and make my own cake and we both get a tasty treat. So called piracy is a fight over weather or not a product is worth what they are claiming it is worth since they get unlimited digital copies of said product.
no one here said piracy is theft. piracy is nonetheless an illegal activity. when you make copies of material you do not own the copyright to, you are committing violation of copyright laws. so while piracy is not exactly the same thing as theft, you are fundamentally no different from a thief - both are criminals.
I don't see them paying Samsung, western digital, seagate or any other hard drive manufacturer for the storage space they use again and again, they pay once and get the storage but use it over and over, now that's a crime. The reason this is all a ridiculous battle is beacsue they want to pretend as if their costs are the same when in reality their cost is much much lower now days and the market simply will not bear it, thus a black market is born.
black market is called black for a reason.
if you think something is too expensive why don't you just ignore it and look away? are they forcing you to buy their products?

a reply to: MeteoraXV

My point was that they want to play the game and stack the odds in their
favor in every way, they want cheap or free production while charging
prices that would be realistic if they actually had to pay labor to reproduce
physical media. The reality is that the market simply will not bear the
price they desire and yes a black market is black because the true market
value of something is influenced artificially too high.

The simple way i deal with this problem myself is to circumvent it by
choosing only the things which i feel are worth the monetary value.
I use netflix for most of my shows and when broken down price wise
i get a value for money that is wonderful. I also use several other
legal avenues that intelligent entrepreneurs have provided us such
as redbox 1.06 for a movie rental, yes please! i watch for sales
on amazon digital rentals and the like to get a good value.
As for big screen movies i frequent my local drive in movie theater,
my own private booth with great sound and a double feature for just
7$.

HBO on the other hand have pushed themselves into the same corner
blockbuster did with movie rentals, the market spoke, they ignored
and now they are going bye bye. The illegal part of all this will
go away as soon as the business side realizes their mistake, always
has worked that way.

I will pay 10 dollars for a digital music album but i never would pay
25 for a CD i knew cost them about 2 cents to produce, the music
industry tried to fight it but lost as well. this is and always will be
a consumers market, you just cant fight innovation.

And i know no one here said theft but that is what it is considered in
the long run really, copyright laws are very flawed and i am hoping
within our life times that issues is dealt with properly but until then
the people with the real money, the consumer, will dictate the market
any way they like and its just too bad for those who cannot innovate.

a reply to: bloodreviara
well again, if the price is too high, why do you want it anyway? if you want entertainment, create your own entertainment or look for other people's entertainment that is cheap or even free. there are a gazillion of free youtube clips out there made by people who own the copyright to said clips because they made those clips themselves or they have permission to upload them. but why do you still want to watch the big blockbuster expensive hollywood film if you can't afford it? are they making you watch that film? no you choose to do so.
The simple way i deal with this problem myself is to circumvent it by choosing only the things which i feel are worth the monetary value.
you can feel whatever you want - you are still engaging in criminal activity, no matter how much you try to explain it away. no one gave you the right to act like god and assign a price tag to products as you please. you can rate a product like in a review but you don't have a say in deciding the price of something. entertainment product is not a free buffet you can just choose from as you please, where you can spit out what you don't like and fill your plate with what you do like.
I use netflix for most of my shows and...
well it's good that you use all those services, as you should. but just because you use legal services doesn't mean you are allowed to use illegal services as well, logically.
HBO on the other hand...
if you don't like hbo's legal business practices. then look away and forget about game of thrones. if people hate hbo so much then why do they still download game of thrones so much? because they want an expensive entertainment product for nothing.
The illegal part of all this will go away as soon as the business side realizes their mistake, always has worked that way.
hbo and similar companies have never made a mistake, the mistake is made by people who illegally download copies of their products. there are other more civil ways of dealing with hbo if you don't like something about them, but since humans are such selfish insatiable animals they will choose the illegal way of doing things. not just piracy btw - piracy is just one type of criminal activity out of thousands of types of crime that is being committed.
I will pay 10 dollars for a digital music album but i never would pay 25 for a CD i knew cost them about 2 cents to produce
good! that means you won't illegally download it either. right?
the music industry tried to fight it but lost as well. this is and always will be a consumers market, you just cant fight innovation.
the music industry does what it does what they do to protect its product. if anyone doesn't like their products, which again aren't forced onto anyone, they should just look away and stop buying said products from the big bad evil music industry and turn towards indie bands who give their music for free or for a lower price. yet people still download products that the big bad evil music industry produced. why?

also, they don't "fight innovation", they go along with by having the appropriate laws passed to regulate illegal activity that would result from said innovation. saying the usual "they fight innovation" is really just another weak way of saying "their products should be free, screw copyright and intellectual property, mine mine mine".
And i know no one here said theft but that is what it is considered in the long run really, copyright laws are very flawed and i am hoping within our life times that issues is dealt with properly
copyright laws are not flawed - we have copyright laws because they protect the rights of the author of a creative work and to prevent anyone from appropriating said creative work. they are very important to have in place.
but until then the people with the real money, the consumer, will dictate the market any way they like and its just too bad for those who cannot innovate.
the consumer can dictate the market, by not buying the products you want but can't afford but still download illegally (hint: it's called boycott, which in this case a form of consumer activism, and guess what, it's legal!).

a reply to: MeteoraXV

Dude, I have never once tried to justify my piracy...I don't care, won't care, call me a thief, I don't give a crap!

It's always going to exist, unless they can come up with a full proof plan to stop it, even then there will be ways to circumnavigate the blocks put it in place.

This is your second attempt at such a thread, I don't understand why you wish to keep trolling, you knew the outcome the first time.

It is not your place to pass judgement on us, I would like to know what you justification is for forcefully trying to re-educate us to your way of thinking.

Oh and don't give me the "It's illegal!" bull again.

You don't like it, don't do it, you don't like others doing it...tough!

We have a choice and we have free will, so do you, I suggest you apply yours a little more productively.

Here's an idea, why don't you work on a way to stop us full stop from indulging in piracy...of course you would need to write a sophisticated program and be able to be six moves ahead at least of all the hackers out there.


NOTE:
It's interesting, you never replied to my first post, yet have to the last two...just an observation.

originally posted by: MeteoraXV
point is, i have never really come across a 100% solid ultimate argument that justifies piracy. yet almost everyone does it. at the most fundamental level, piracy is inherently wrong and there are laws in place against it. but if anyone can convince me in favour of piracy or more specifically, unrestricted and free acquistion of this type of information (media and entertainment) then my mind will finally be at peace

How is online piracy justified again?

Well, the Sony musics of the world now have copyright on music for the life of the artist plus 70 years. Why should I pay copyright after the artist is dead. Why should pay for a free meal of the kids and grand kids of a bloke who recorded a song 40 years and has been 10 years? What do I owe the the artists kids and his grand kids ??????????????

Why would I want to pay Sony music a royalty for the music after the artists is dead????

The Sony musics of the world argue that I should not download music of a recording artist because I am taking food off that struggling artist/ If Sony music is concerend about the welfare of the artists why dont they pay the struggling artist more money????????????????

Why should I care about the financial welfare of the Sony Musics of the world? Do they care about me?

Perhaps you could tell me this. Why should I give a two stuffs about Sony Music. Give me a reason.

BTW, I wont accept that I should pay Sony music money just because they own the copyright and that's the law. So effin what? I don't care what the law says, The sony musics should not be permitted to own copyright beyond 5 years after the artist is dead.

We are supposed to be government of the people by the people. The government should have put this to the people in the form of a referendum and let we the people determine what is fair period of time for the Sony musics of the world to have copyright for, not some self serving corporate entity.

a reply to: MeteoraXV

ROFL

It was the 2nd line that was the reason. The only thing in common. Dont make it something it is not.

I want sumpin for nuttin.

That is the reason. All the other crap is just rationalizing. Morons that attempt to justify their reasoning come across as just someone who tries to find a reason to steal. It's stealing, they know it is stealing so one must come up with a really good reason to justify their theft.

So much better to be an honorable thief, or a revolutionary thief than just a plain thief.

a reply to: solargeddon
Dude, I have never once tried to justify my piracy...I don't care, won't care, call me a thief, I don't give a crap!
you're not a thief solargeddon which is why i never called you one
also in your first post you say:

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: MeteoraXV

I can justify piracy in these easy steps...

and then go on to attempt justify it but i don't know if you actually were serious or not when you wrote that.
This is your second attempt at such a thread, I don't understand why you wish to keep trolling, you knew the outcome the first time.
i was not aware i was trolling
It is not your place to pass judgement on us, I would like to know what you justification is for forcefully trying to re-educate us to your way of thinking.
i haven't passed judgement on anyone which was already guaranteed in my opening post!
"this is not an attack on people who download illegally...
...but forget about you and me downloading and focus on piracy itself."
meaning, i am just as bad as you are for what i did in the past and i attack the behaviour not the individual him/herself!
i'm not forcefully re-educating anyone! i just describe, objectively, what is happening!
Oh and don't give me the "It's illegal!" bull again.
well, it is. you can't just magically think illegality away like it isn't there.
You don't like it, don't do it, you don't like others doing it...tough!
i don't like it but i don't try to force people to stop doing it! i'm just trying to understand the other side better and attempt to make them understand my side a little better. communication between opposing parties is very important otherwise bad situations will persist.
We have a choice and we have free will, so do you, I suggest you apply yours a little more productively.
which is what i do, i try to raise awareness aroud the net about how piracy is always wrong and cannot be justified in spite of what the seemingly overwhelming majority of people seem to believe. i get the dumbest answers from so many people for example, (not from this board): "uuuuh i already paid for my computer and for my internet so f off i'm not going to pay for movies and games and software as well!" this depressing mode of thinking and sense of entitlement must be corrected in a peaceful, informative manner and from a neutral perspective. and that neutral perspective tends to be the same as the anti-piracy side of the debate. there should be no such thing as pro- and anti-piracy because piracy is already fundamentally wrong.
i also try to raise the same kind of awareness for global warming (which is possibly going to kill us all) and holocaust denial (on white extrenist boards) and other such topics.
Here's an idea, why don't you work on a way to stop us full stop from indulging in piracy...of course you would need to write a sophisticated program and be able to be six moves ahead at least of all the hackers out there.
this will never get at the root of the problem. the root of the problem of piracy is the sense of entitlement which is solely on the side of the pirates and not the companies that offer their products and are expecting legal compensation for, products that you can choose not to touch if you can't afford them.
creating an anti-piracy program will be too much trouble, will result in rebellion, massive outrage, media wars, will result in a vicious cycle of hackers cracking the program and the programmers strengthening the program and so on, etc. - all in all it will result in needless anger and negative energy and we really don't need more of that.
i am for the peaceful solution. i am doing my part by trying to make us selfish insatiable animals aware that we can stop piracy - but we have to be the ones to do it.
it's our choice, we can stop pirating or we can have the government utilitze even more draconian measures than those already in place. it's not a very hard choice now is it.

a reply to: learnatic
Well, the Sony musics of the world now have copyright on music for the life of the artist plus 70 years. Why should I pay copyright after the artist is dead.
learnatic, the reason copyright lasts for the author's lifetime plus 70 is because congress set it to be that way in the CTEA of 1998. disney lobbied extensively on behalf of the act and the extension was supported by the entertainment, software and technology industry. thanks to the act, the US gets to profit economically from the copyright industries even more, for they contribute to a sizable portion of US trade surpluses. it was also supported because the EU at the time also passed a copyright term extension of 20 years, so if the US did not pass a similar extension, the US copyright industry and consequently, the economy would suffer (very badly) from EU competition. it is very clear and simple economic reasoning. above all, copyright duration is subject to change by legislation.
if you don't like this then simply don't buy products which are subject to this particular term. knowing the laws involved really puts things into perspective and you won't have to suddenly be pained by the crushing blow to blissful ignorance.

furthermore, it doesn't matter what sony says about the struggling artists in their roster. piracy has to do first and foremost with the attack on copyright. don't like sony's behavior or the copyright term? don't buy their products. talk with your money by not buying their stuff, but don't then go behind their backs and download it anyway.

if you don't care what the law says...well you should think about what JFK said in 1962 about putting yourself above the law.

a reply to: MeteoraXV

I was joking about the justification part, not the three easy steps.

Piracy is systemic, it cannot be irradicated, like you said, too much trouble to write it out if existence with a program.

Perhaps justification is the wrong word to use, in your eyes there is no justification, to everyone else there is degrees of acceptability.

Lets take this from a completely different angle....

Anyone with an idea, or creative thought, something they themselves have conjured, whether writing, art, music, gaming...the second it is put out there it is shared whether it is paid for or not, the whoever that markets these things puts a payment system in place for you to access, yet there will always be people who wish to access via a workaround.

Like in the case of Divergent, it started like as a book, conjured from someone's imagination, it was then copied and turned into a film (although bits have been changed/cut), the author was compensated sure, but once something leaves your private realm you can never truly maintain ownership exclusively, a gorup of film students could just as easliy have chosen to re-inact the book to video for there own personal enjoyment, thus copying, worse still they may have just borrowed the book from the library, thus not ever having paid a penny to access the material.

A little like my son, his instagram name, he loves it, made of letters and numbers, trouble is now a couple of his freinds have copied the format of the identity that he has created for himself....this has upset him, as now he thinks others will think he has copied and not the other way around.

So you see, it's not always about money, even something personal to you, that you have chosen to brand yourself to the world can be highjacked and rightly so, as my son has no true claim to it once he has put it out there.

And then there is radio...who isn't guilty of taping songs off the top 40 back in the day?!

That is illegal too.

And so it all goes round again and again and again.

I do hope these companies apprecaite you personally for keeping them in paid employment and defending their copyrights.

Alrighty me hearties this cyberlubber is signing off from this thread!

Enjoy OP, you might get lucky and discover someone random who has a moment of contrition...but I doubt it's going to happen.

It seems the issue here is.. most people dont really care about legalities.

That doesnt mean they dont care about morality, but that isnt dictated by legality, perhaps with the exception of the naive.

Pretty much all the stuff I watch is freely available online, and not through piracy (just on network websites, youtube, etc.). I think this is a direct measure to counteract piracy, and might not be available if no one ever pirated "X" material. By releasing it for free direct from the source, it allows for advertisement revenue to stay in place.

I know some friends who also try things before they buy them. Too much crap gets churned out in every level of entertainment media, and most investments in this arena are non-refundable (meaning, you are stuck with it).

Beyond any of that, if you think you are going to convince anyone of anything using the arguments presented.. I would suggest maybe taking a different approach. The current one is far too flawed, and even the entertainment media titans are moving beyond the archaic, naive approach.

Even if you dont participate in piracy, it is very likely you benefit from it because of the decisions the industry has made directly because of pirated material.

In the real world, just because something is illegal, it doesnt make it disappear. This thread reminds me of the D.A.R.E. programs in school.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I agree.

Bottom line is that the pirated material does not belong to them, therefore regardless of what their motives are, they are thieves, taking something that does not belong for them.

Apparently a good reason to steal is overpriced goods. Therefore that piece of prime beef for sale at the butcher shop, at $25/lb, is subject to being stolen with a clear conscience. Perhaps that car, valued at over $60k, which is overpriced is also subject to being stolen. Not only that but the authorities should not take steps to redress the thievery, but should just turn a blind eye to it.

Nice rationalization. Nice set of ethics, morals or whatever measure you wish to express. A thief is a thief particularly when we are not even talking about necessities of life but, rather, luxury items. So therefore if it is a necessity of life, it must REALLY be ok. Go steal that home. Steal groceries. No problem!!

So I call for those professing the "right" to pirate music, movies or books to show us how truly committed they are by stealing everything else they want.

No? Oh,, I got it. It's not that there is a right involved, it's that the likelihood of being caught is low. What do you call that? Cowardice? Theft? What?

a reply to: bbracken677

Legally it would indeed be defined as thievery, but that is only relevant to those who abide by every letter of the law as some sort of moral compass. Most dont do that, and even though I do not pirate material, trying to define morality through legislation is a faulty endeavor.

Growing your own garden is illegal in some places. Therefore, people who do grow their own can be legally defined as criminals, but actually supporting this decision beyond citing legislation is short sighted to an extreme degree.

I have benefited from the piracy though, as have many, many people. As the outdated concepts are slowly replaced, it will all fade into obscurity anyway. There is a ton of money to be made, if one is clever enough to take advantage of it. If the businesses are not clever enough to actually capitalize on the opportunity, then perhaps we should let true capitalism take its course...

a reply to: MeteoraXV
I do own 200+copyrights, share in 1 Trademark and Licensing Agrrement, and have authored 4 novels...so Im in deep as to "intellectual property rights". I too see the reasoning behind say renting or downloading a movie at home and using a VHS r DVD recorder. The same with tv shows.

The "newest" most responsible "copyright" to devise for all the digital changes world-wide over the last say 10 years especially...is to create some newer form for a "ORIGINATOR COPYRIGHT" just as a way to designate who is the legal creator...and then? Who knows?

PS All the major record labels, and movies and audio production facilities and companies world-wide...still require a legal registered copyright before they will even touch a group or entertainer.

As a participant, I do see a day coming where it will all work out for everyone. Still, at this point in time, piracy is still illegal and flourishing. We need to have a new and better definition for the times.

Thanks for letting me explain from the ownership side...MS

I've been a pirate all my life. My family taught me well
In life we are all pirates, under command of the biggest pirate of all! Life itself!

I still have taped copies of south park from our local tv chanel... seasons 1-5 I believe.
As well as other shows, concerts, music videos, etc. 90% of which I watched while I recorded them back in the day.
Same thing with music.
I've never made money off of it.
My friends and I download and share a lot. But most of us (not all of us) spend substantial amounts on media.
I'd say more than half of our collections were built after the advent of online piracy. So, although I have -edit- a lot of -edit- mp3's my physical music collection grows and grows. I have around 500 CD's and a paltry 50 odd DVD's, which pales in comparison to three friends who each have near or over 2000 CD's alone, never mind records, DVD's, games, etc.
And I'm sure that the money I have spent on media and merchandise is way over average.
I would hate to be prosecuted for my interests in media, it would hurt me as well as the people who benefit from my purchases.

That is a rough example of my argument to not prosecute for what has been deemed 'piracy'.

I can see why people have a problem with torrent sites (I'm not too sure how torrent sites run, what kind of money do they make off of illegal torrents?)
I think it's wrong to make money off of pirated material. However, if I purchase a DVD and decide to rip it and share it online, why is this illegal?

It's just... I dunno... I think that there will be enough fans of something to buy into it without getting your knickers in a knot over who's got it for free. And honestly in the case of music, I've been let down fewer times and made better choices on my purchases. If people love Game of Thrones, like luuuuurv it, like, absolutely dhaaaayaaaang, dying for it, then they should bloody well buy it. But it would be hellova ignorant for companies to expect even half of their viewers to lurv it that much. so, to end off, for me to stop speaking; piracy, in my little world, as observed in myself and my friends, has actually increased sales... or at least the marketing of potential sales.

One thing that irritates me about the internet and music is that bands seem to be skimping on presentation - the art, the ideas, the engagement. That is a big selling point to me. I don't just want a disc with some lyrics, man.

a reply to: Jimjolnir

Cant really call recording tv programs that were broadcast with commercials piracy. You completed your part of the bargain by recording the commercials, or watching them.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I doubt any clear line can be drawn whether it be for just one person or everybody. But in order to try let's start be defining the terms we are going to use.

What defines Piracy vs. Sharing???

If I buy a CD and loan it to you when is it piracy???

When you make a copy???

After I loan it out to 100 more people or 1000 more???

Or just loaning it to you???

What if I buy it, but then play it in the open for anyone to enjoy whenever they want???

The point is, I purchased it, but then after that point when is Sharing what I paid for become Piracy and exactly what is the difference between the two???

mOjOm, I applaud you, That was inspiring, simply inspiring. If you ever run for anything, anything at all, Lemme know. You've got my vote.

a reply to: bbracken677

No way man Commercials... I edited those out - pro-recorder here.
Usually recorded on one tape, then re-recorded onto another tape to edit
I miss those days. It's so easy to get lost in the plethora of media available today, both for entertainment and intellectual purposes... back then, everything seemed more special, to be quaint, because it was a treasure and the treasure was a physical reflection of you. Not just a flicker on a monitor, digitally reflected from a hard drive.